Zoken44's page

Everyone has been clamoring for the SRO's... maybe that?

Why does it want to strike pretty often? For the drone and the Mine exocortexes, not really. action command the drone/deploy a mine, move, take cover, hide, modify.

Also, the inventor doesn't add int to his strikes. Nor does the magus. the Swashbuckler, while it ain't their KAS, is heavily encouraged to invest in charisma. +3 in two traits is perfectly viable, even give you a +2 in some other thing, so if you wanted to swap strength for dex, you'd still be able to have a viable build, just be kind of low armored for a couple levels.

Getting the PDF when it's available next week (or maybe a couple days later) but... what are the contemplative like? I watched Phoebe Bane's over view of the Astrozoans, the Vlaka, and the Dragon-Kin (by the way... am I the only one who got Dragons from Rick and Morty vibes there?). What are the contemplatives like?

maybe adding a trait to some of them, like the kineticist's Overflow, where at the end of a turn you have roll a flat check (say the 17 of Unstable) and if you fail, the modify ends. Not all of them need this trait, but things like that huge damage buff would get it.

I just really want to play. My D&D group is taking... convincing. I've even offered to DM, since I'm more familiar with the system. we'll see if they take the bate. Currently running Strahd.

yeah, I do agree with their extra features they don't really need the 4th slot per rank. I think the Technomancer could probably use it though.

But they've said that while the rules would be compatible, the meta of the games would be very different. Hence easier access to flying has been a huge example they give for SF2e's meta difference. Couldn't this sort of thing fall into that meta difference?

Would you be willing to help me understand why the two chassis were too strong, even with the new meta. I am asking with the understanding that you're right, and I don't understand, not trying to argue with you.

That is a really good idea Xenocrat. It would address a lot of the, very valid, desire for more abilities with tech, without giving them stuff that can be turned off.

Is it possible the break threshold was only meant to refer to the turret's ability to act as cover? and not it's ability to fire?

I'm okay with the difference in HP and armor, after all clerics and Druids have more HP and armor than wizards, despite being full casters.

I hope they are just experimenting here with 3/rank, I like the idea that as magic has evolved, more casters just have 4/rank. LIke they said, the meta is different. It's expected for most martials to have ranged weapons, and combat to be ranged, thus maybe the more slots is the magic equivilant to this?

I think that restriction should keep it from being too powerful, so that even if a human picks it up in addition to other class features, it shouldn't unbalance things. It's just, functionally, a single extra spell slot that can only be prepared at first level with a single spell.

Maybe later feats allowing to change the selected spell of one of these (instead of retraining) but it can be changed to any spell of a rank they can cast, that they (the technomancer) or an ally is able to cast. This isn't a change they can repeat.

I guess I just disagree with you. We will see what paizo does on this issue. You aren't the only one I've heard express this frustration.

So I think lacking the armor proficiency and the lower HP makes sense for a purely scholarly class like WatersLethe was just saying. I don't know why the spell slots per rank were reduced. It could just be them trying something different either with the initial playtest or the new one. I agree that there is no reason for it to have fewer slots/rank than WW or Mystic.

I've stated elsewhere that my theory on why their chassis is light on abilities to interact with a tech environment is for two reason: most of the tech interactions will be covered in spells, which the arcane spell list is likely to have the most tech interaction abilities of any, and avoiding having class features that can just be shut off by going to the wrong environment, which was the main weakness of the original 5e ranger.

But that's just a theory. I'm not a game dev so maybe there is some room to add abilities that could help enhance the technomancer flavor.

How about an ecletic crew trying to escape the Azlanti Empire, stealing a starship, and running afoul of all manner of things as they try to find their way to the Pact Worlds, along with the reality that the Pact worlds, while better than the ASE is not the Utopia they had heard and imagined it to be.

This is a really good point. The inventor had a feat chain for this, and it makes even more sense for the Mechanic to have it. (and there are several shared feats/chains between classes so it wouldn't really step on toes)

So WatersLethe, I didn't mention Augmented reality. I understand what AR/VR are. I said "ALTERED" reality. someone was talking about creating a area where digital constructs became real and such. Creating pockets of Altered reality is explicitly the bread and butter of the witchwarper. So what's being described in that situation would be more akin to a tech themed witchwarper.

my argument regarding spells is that they have said previously that spells that interact with technology are common since the setting has had high technology for centuries. So a lot of the flavorful tech things you mention, for example creating the HP and stat screen for an enemy, are things spells will cover (or in some of the other cases may) cover.

What I worry not many are accounting for is that not all environments will be high tech. and if too much of the class' power budget is put into interacting directly with tech, that may not leave them much they can do in environments without tech. I think that's why they created the OVerclock and modify abilities for these two classes. so that you could always interact with the tech you bring with you and your powers are never turned off because you are in the wrong environment. And then you have a lot of spells that let the technomancer interact with technology in those more creative ways y'all are thinking of, but you can prepare non-tech dependent spells if you know you'll be in a low tech area. that is what I was trying to get across before.

That last bit is something I had never thought of. That's a really good point.

So I saw someone with a... erm... "Crappy Idea" (IYKYK) about a wand that double the range of a spell. And I thought, why isn't that a thing in PF2e?

Like not necessarily a wand to do it, but an item that you attach to an arcane focus or yourself to let you use a spellshape, even though you don't have the feat for it. Make it a talisman that a spell caster can attach to a staff or wand, and any time they cast a spell they can use an action to consume the talisman and use the spellshape.

Would that be unbalancable? would that erode the purpose of taking the feat?

This is a creation for creations sake thing, not necessarily getting ready to deploy it, but I want people's opinion. Could the item level of the talisman be equal to the feat level? What are problems y'all foresee I'm not thinking of?

new Dwarven headcannon occured to me, it's a bit off topic but it's my thread I'll Necro if I want to.

Not all Dwarves are miners and smiths. This is a mistaken impression because the dwarven words regarding occupation are more focused on the overall project, than the specific task being performed. Many Dwarves who proudly, and among dwarves accurately, name themselves as Miners were water bearers, who's whole job focused around getting water and restorative drinks to the Dwarves deep in the mines working and sweating. Others who say they are miners, were medics tending to injuries minor and major that occur.

Dwarves who say they are warriors may carry weapons on the front lines, or they may be the Dwarf back in the fortress shining armor and sharpening swords as a quartermaster for poorer recruits who don't have family heirlooms.

A dwarf may call themselve a sword maker, and we might them as a jewler because they whole focus is the filigree and inlaying of precious metals in the handle, guard and pommel.

And they would all be welcome to tell their tales among other dwarves and call themselves Miners, Warriors, and Smiths. because the Dwarves understand each of these things is necessary for the whole project.

I would argue that something I've not seen mentioned much is that Mechanic also fills a bit of the skill monkey role. With 2 skills off the bat (which can be auto leveled) and then 3+int skills, with int intended to be higher as KAS. add this to the skills that the drone can pick up, that makes the Mechanic a very skill strong character.

I am sorry for straw-manning you. My thinking was that if new baked in abilities were put in, current abilities would need to be pushed out for balance. That is why I put words in your mouth about removing other abilities. Do you feel the Overclock and jailbreak abilities are underpowered and leave room for more class specific abilities? If so, what would you like to see added in.

While I disagree with you about the spell situation in nuanced ways, I hear what you're saying.

That wasn't my intention, and you make a good point. I apologize for being condescending. It wasn't my intention, but I can see it there.

I stand by my comparison to the 5e ranger, but also recognize that I am being a lot more confrontational than this discussion really calls for. I am sorry.

When they get the survey fixed, that is definitely something that needs clarification.

So the basic class feature they have that does magic to technology that they carry around doesn't count because... because.

And despite the fact that tons of the spells already released in the preview interact with technology in a variety of ways ways, you are worried that there won't be spells that interact with technology in what you think are very basic necessary ways for a technomancer, and so those abilities need to be baked into the technomancer, pushing out the the newer stuff so that all they can do is interact with technology, so that if the adventure takes place anywhere without high-tech, the class is useless? This is what you're wanting?

I repeat, do y'all want the 5eRanger, because this is how you get the D&D5e Ranger. What I mean by this is, the original 5e ranger, in their favored terrain was amazing. they had awesome abilities that made the party's lives easier, but the moment the party left the swamp/forest/desert/mountain/cave etc. most of their class abilities shut off. This is clearly them trying not to give you abilities that go away in common environments.

I've seen someone mention actual features, like an ability to directly interface with computers, much like a druid's wildsong, but allowing them to talk to tech. That makes sense and wouldn't take up too much power budget and push out other features. What features, SPECIFICALLY, are you wanting?

So to both of these responses I can only see two solutions, which both feel unsatisfying.

1: all the new spells that have been released that interface with technology in the previous playtest, and all the ones going forward are exclusive to the technomancer, which means that despite technology being a very common part of life for hundreds if not thousands of years, only one kind of magical practitioner can interact with it at all.

2: The technomancer has all these cool ribbon abilities that are not spell based that either make it totally OP, or if balanced with the rest of it's kit, shut off a good bit of the technomancer's power if the setting is low or no tech, like the jungles of castrovel, or the plains of Akiton.

They do combine technology with magic, as they keep their prepared spells in a database with a special cache of spells they can download into their prepared list. They can channel spare magical energy to enhance their gear (oh look, magic interacting with technology you wear into those environments I talked about) and because of their technology centered mind set they alter spells in ways that even wizards, the supposed pinnacle of magic, can't do.

The way I understand it/see it, is that the Witchwarper is taking a hammer to the walls of reality to cast their spells, hence causing their signature area of disturbance.

Where as the Technomancer is looking at magic from a programmer's prespective, understanding how spells operate on fundamental levels, and thus able to alter, tweak, and change them. To A Technomancer magic is programming reality is running on, and they known how to adeptly alter the code and hack it.

as far as deployment goes, I'm not a fan of how it's set up now. Also, Kaid, you're right, detonation is 100ft.

My thought is this: 1action deploy within 30ft. 2 action deploy within 30ft, but other creatures must pass a perception check to know where it is.

Another thought, and feel free to tell me if either of these ideas is broken, change them from items to hazards.

Thanks Mx. Coleman! I really appreciate you continuing to be here with us while we enjoy (and nitpick) the playtest!

Don't forget that you can always go with the alternate 2 free bonuses no penalties for any ancestry.

I can accept a mechanical argument on that. But it is something we should mention in the survey that they neglected to clarify.

YES! This is what I want modify for! I want to duck tape something onto an ally's weapon and grunt, "There, now shoots farther"

so if their int is -3 or higher they know the object you dropped is an explosive mine automatically? Again, I get recognizing it could be dangerous, but recognizing it as a mine? I would counter that at -3 (and not from a low/no-tech world) They recognize it as dangerous, and can make a recall knowledge check against a standard DC for your level (not class DC) to figure out it's an explosive. I agree, they still recognize it's probably dangerous, but not exactly what it is. and +3 or higher, yeah, automatically clocking, that's an explosive.

I completely agree with you Squark, but I can see a counter coming up, so I will go ahead and pose it: Modify. you have all kinds of modifies that make your weapons and armor more effective. would this not suggest play-space for a more direct and aggressive mechanic.

So I'd like a feat for Deploying a mine invisibly.

And while I get that it would obviously be seen, would they know (if they haven't fought your character, who is kludging together their equipment themselves, that they are a mine? Yeah, the would absolutely see it being thrown, and especially smarter enemies would know it could be dangerous, but would they know it's a mine?

So, I have a question that I haven't seen asked...

Do enemies recognize your mines as mines or dangers?

More over, can they see you deploy a mine and do they automatically see deployed mines?

Yes they do tell you about nerfs and stuff. They give follow ups and blog posts about how they're interpreting and implementing feed back all the time.

Also, if you chose to be a subscriber, you were likely going to buy the book even if they nerf it to hell.

We're not dealing with WotC here, Paizo has built a brand on being player friendly and transparent.

Will there be an errata on the Playtest? There are some things that need clarification, to make sure we are using them correctly in playtest.

I agree, Maybe a magichack/focus spell for ServoShell that works kind of like the Wild druid's. WHere in it allows for you to summon robots at base level, and other summons get added in with the caveat that in addition to any other trait they get the tech trait as well.

The mechanic does focus on tech they carry with them in their modify ability, which I do hope comes with options for utility situations, which would really scratch the itch I agree with you on there.

What you described the technomancer doing is the Witchwarper thing. Setting up a field of altered reality. That is a tech themed Witchwarper subclass.

Teridax, I agree with the consensus that "Rig" is a better name for the subclasses, but in that case, I would want the Exocortex as you described it dropped. the way you described it would be stepping on the toes of the Evolutionist, assuming the plan to eventually adapt it.

All my gripping and snapping done. I want to be mature.

I do hear you. The Technomancer, as presented in the playtest, doesn't really feel like what you envisioned a technomancer to be. I can understand that this is annoying. And you've got all of us essentially saying "Be quiet and be grateful" as you feel like you're being ignored. If I have given the impression I am not trying to understand your side, I apologize. We should be respectful and empathetic to each other.

That said, What I feel we are trying to, ultimately, communicate is that the flavor of technomancer you are looking for was probably considered too situational to be built directly into the class, as there would be tons of likely situations that would render those abilities useless.

And it is far more expedient to allow the spell list to provide those sorts of abilities, especially since as a prepared caster with a strong ability to rewrite your prepared spells, you can have the spells you need at the ready for the situation you're facing.

Now, contrary to the position I've been holding, WatersLethe makes a good point, a light ability to just passively talk communicate with machines, like the Druid can do with animals, is probably a good ability to bake into the basic class chassis

So you want to add class abilities that can be functionally useless depending on the environment?

Because in the jungles of Castrovel, or in the open wastes of Akiton, or barren rocks in the Diaspora, all of those tech specific abilities you're talking about are useless. Do you want the D&D5e ranger? Because this is how you get the D&D5e Ranger.

So you want a technology kineticist. No spells, just different feat/impulses they can take to influence technology.

They are a spell caster. The way they cast their spells is filtered through their understand of the world as a computer programmer and hacker. I get that you're saying "no, technomancer just means technology, they should have any other abilities that aren't related to technology that way if we are in low tech environment like a jungle or deserted asteroid they are useless."

They use the arcane spell list which is going to have tons of spells that allow them to warp and work with technology, yes, other casters have access to some or all of these spells because this is the far future, but none of them understand magic the way the technomancer does, as a programmer and hacker.

Milo V3, Is a wizard a pyromancer? Or a sorcerer? Only if you build them and their spells specifically for that. So yes, a Witch or a wizard using arcane spells and SF2e spells could be a "technomancer" but they wouldn't have the specialization that the official Technomancer has. The ability to, by understanding magic from a programmer's prespective, edit the code of their spells and modify them well beyond what any other magical practitioner can do.

It's likely that when released the Arcane spell list will have more technology related spells than the other spell lists.

Lmao, you think they’d tell you BEFORE they had your money?!

Of course all nerfs will be kept unpublicized until release so you can’t do anything about it and backlash will be numbed by the release overall.

Is... is this sarcasm? Paizo is going to have this on AoN, some kind of free builder, and There will be sponsored videos detailing this stuff within weeks of the official release. Yeah, they will tell you before they have your money, they are rather notable for being about that.

Again, if this was sarcasm, sorry, I didn't understand.

And Ectar, because I don't want to be petulant, I'm biting down on some "um, actually", but we agree on the most important parts: The GM gets ultimate say. If GM says mines have to be deployed on ground, or on surface (like mounted to a wall or soemthing) I'm not going to argue any further. and there is no narrative or mechanical reason against mid-air deployment. It does go against most assumptions.

I get that you think I'm rules-lawyering to get an outcome the devs did not intend. And I recognize that taken to extremes that kind of behavior can be toxic and exploitative of the GM and other players. That is why I invited the mechanical question. I know I'm not as smart as the devs, and if this did cause a mechanical advantage that was unintended, I don't want that.

Okay, you've accepted that Narratively there isn't a problem. How about mechanically. Does it break some power scaling for the adjacent square to be above your character? or the thirty foot one to be in the air?

Again, you make an assumption, but there is no reason that assumption MUST be true. and again, I am going to admit, your assumption is not unreasonable. and again, if I were a player at a table you were GMing, I wouldn't have pushed this past your first no.

I'm not misrepresenting your arguments. I'm pointing out that you keep insisting that your assumption MUST be true. I'm asking you to defend that with a mechanical or narrative reason.

also, how does allowing me to place a mine ten feet in the air make the game NOT starfinder?

So in Starfinder, if I say we need to get on a ship, you assume I mean a boat to go across water? Or do you assume a FLYING space ship?

I'm not hearing a mechanic or narrative reason for them not to be able to be deployed in mid air. I'm hearing you say "You're pretending wrong, you have to pretend the way I pretend."

I get it, at your table, with you as GM, that wouldn't be okay, mines would be deployed on the ground only. and your table, that's fair and reasonable.

I'm saying unless the rules are clarified, why limit ourselves to that perspective?